Summations Only

I think what he is trying to say is that a cell, although it doesn’t have intelligence of its own, (although I don’t know why he started talking about a cell seeing), does have intelligence built into its function.Here is a definition of innate from the net. Emphasis mine:
Innate
1. existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.
2. inherent in the essential character of something: an innate defect in the hypothesis.
3. originating in or arising from the intellect or the constitution of the mind, rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of good and evil.So, in answer to the title question of whether there exists an innate intelligence in nature, I would have to say yes.The question that goes beyond this topic is whether or not that innate intelligence evolved from an intelligent or non-intelligent source.

Here is a site that talks about it but I suppose it isn't conclusive.http://www.brianjford.com/a-10-mensamag-cells.pdfFor that matter plant life doesn't have a brain, but the plant turns to the sun, draws mositure from the soil etc.

I'm not trying to be clever here, but isn't memory stored intelligence?

No I didn't mean intelligence in that sense either. The way I saw it is that IMHO there is information within a cell that causes it to react to certain stimuli.For example a leaf turning to the sun. It seems to me that stored intelligence such as that would be considered innate intelligence.

Memory or information Sure it's mechanics but it take information/memory/intelligence to initiate it. It's a bit like us pulling our hand away from a hot burner. It's instinctive and it's mechanical but it took information/memory/intelligence to initiate the act.

I replied to jar brfore seeing your reply.I agree that it isn't active intelliegence but it seems to me that a plant or my hand requires stored information or intelligence to react. A dead leaf doesn't turn towards the sun as the information has been lost.It seems to me that the chemical reaction and the electro-chemical signal that you mentioned required stored information in the living cells of the plant to behave the way they do.By the way, you're up late.

Thanks PandaFrankly even after googling around I don't understand the subject anywhere near well enough to debate you so if you don't mind I'll just ask another question.My understanding is that the human body changes every cell in that body at least once every 7 years. (Which begs the question who is the real me. ) This being the case then I assume that replacement cells require information gathered from outgoing cells to perform their required function in the body. Wouldn't that constitute information or stored intelligence?Cheers

Hi PandaI'll respond to your reply To Straggler as he has already replied to your reply to me much more thoughtfully than I could have.You are saying that the brain cells are only responsive by external inputs and will always respond the same way to the same stimuli in much the same way as plants.It feels good to go out in the hot sun. All our external inputs tell us that. However, we also know that if we stay out there any length of time we'll get sunburned and it will be painful.A plant will always do the same thing. However, we are different. Without somebody telling us otherwise we would feel that it is fine to go out in the sun for long periods and would likely do so - once. Then we learn that even though our external inputs tell us it is good, it is actually bad for us. For us to learn not to do it again we not only need the memory of the first time but have to intelligently make a decision to get out of the sun to avoid sunburn.Where is that intelligence if it isn't in our cells? Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

It seems to me that by that reasoning elephants should be really smart. What makes one collective smarter than others? In the first I have no idea, and in the second at the very least AI doesn't make moral choices. Kinda, but I'm more inclined to think that the natural is supernatural. It does seem that the more we find out the more we realize we don't know.

I just can't agree with this. I can't show objective evidence for not agreeing but I feel I'm on reasonable ground subjectively. For example I might be given advice on something about my behaviour. I might just as easily take offence or view it as good advice in which case I might make an attempt to modify my behaviour and I might or I might not be successful.Our moods which affect our decisions seem to change for no discernable reason, and that definitely affects our decisions. I agree that we can always make the argument that any decision that we make is the result of something that we were born with or were influenced by, but that just doesn't seem consistent with my life experience. JMHO With my minimal understanding of QM I think it is clear that we don't live in a deterministic world. However, I suppose you can say they aren't mutually exclusive but it seems to me that determinism would make intelligence unnecessary, and if that is true then why would intelligence have evolved in the first place. OK. But the sling shot combines the existing components of the wood and elastic band. What particular qualities do cells have that when combined form intelligence, and for that matter consciousness, as emergent properties?Part of the problem is again, as Percy has said that we lack a clear definition. It seems to me that stored information or intelligence that can be released would qualify as intelligence.

No but the complexity does make determinism less likely. My mood can be affected by the moods of another person or persons, whose mood is affected by other person or persons ad infinitum. In addition it is then affected by weather, how much sleep I got, the comment someone made to me yesterday, my health etc. All these are in addition to your point about chemicals in the body. Maybe someone who knows more about QM than we do could comment but I also want to repeat the point that determinism makes intelligence unnecessary and thus there would be no reason for it to evolve. The wood provides a base on which to anchor the potential energy of the elastic. In order for cells to be the basis for emerging intelligence they have to have properties that allow for that to happen.Do you consider stored information that can produce physical changes intelligence? For example I know that in order to carry on living that I must carry on breathing. I don't think about that I just do it. Does breathing require intelligence?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Thanks for the explanation. My credentials in this area are from reading Brian Greene and similar books so be advised I'm in way over my head. It seems to me that QM argues against a deterministic world on this basis. Particles don't become the way we perceive them until we perceive them and also the history’s created that allows for our perception. Doesn't this negate a deterministic world? The first line from wiki re determinism says this:

quote:

---

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.

---

It just seems to me that if from the start in a deterministic world where all actions are pre-determined by the previous conditions then I see no reason for intelligence to evolve. I agree with you that we do have the ability to choose and that the world isn't deterministic so intelligence does provide an advantage and makes evolutionary sense.

If the results are random then I think that's a pretty strong indicator that consciousnes of whatever kind, dictates the outcome.

I'm probably seriously out of my depth here but I'll respond
anyway. I would think that quantum indeterminacy functions within the framework of natural laws.When I checked wiki it seems that there are several different ideas on what people mean by determinism.Aside from that though is anyone suggesting that I don't have a choice about what I'm posting right now as it was all determined?

...or "nature's innate intelligence" as accomplished by God.I think this is an interesting discussion but I don't see any reason to bring God into the discussion. It is about how things are and not why they are the way they are. Whether or not everything is the result of creative intelligence or the result of nothing but naturalistic forces makes no difference to the discussion.